Computer assisted method of performing intellectual property (IP) audit optionally over network architecture

ABSTRACT

A computer assisted method of performing an intellectual property (IP) audit estimates a value of an intellectual property portfolio. The computer assisted method includes the steps of analyzing the IP portfolio, and deriving first information responsive to said analyzing step based upon the IP portfolio. The computer assisted method also includes the steps of retrieving empirical data relating to known IP portfolios, and comparing the first information to the empirical data producing an IP worth indicator indicating an estimated worth of the IP portfolio. The computer assisted method is optionally implementable over a network architecture.

RELATED APPLICATIONS

This is a continuation application of U.S. patent application Ser. No.09/518,681 filed Mar. 3, 2000, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,263,314 which in turnis a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 08/811,302, filed Mar. 4,1997, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,154,725, which in turn is acontinuation-in-part application of U.S. patent application Ser. No.08/161,816 filed on Dec. 6, 1993, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,999,907, each ofwhich is incorporated herein by reference.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

The present invention generally relates to the field of intellectualproperty audit systems, and more particularly, to the field ofintellectual property systems which collects pertinent data regarding anintellectual property portfolio and analyzes the collected data againstempirical data to provide a qualitative and/or quantitative analysis ofthe intellectual property portfolio.

2. Description of the Related Art

In general, purchasers of assets which are intellectual propertyintensive typically purchase these assets based upon some estimatedvalue which, of course, begins with an offer for sale. When a creditoris considering advancing funds based upon the value of fixed assets,such as equipment, an appraisal is performed and a liquidation value isdetermined. Then a liquidity adjustment is considered and a liquidationvalue is concluded. The same valuation approaches can be employed todetermine the liquidation value of intellectual property. It is known tovalue intellectual property assets with respect to various accountingprocedures which conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures(GAAP). There are typically three such procedures: cost, market andincome approaches.

The cost approach gives consideration to the cost to reproduce orreplace the subject intellectual property. For example, for patentintellectual property, this approach would consider the cost associatedwith research, engineering, design and testing activities. In trademarkcases the advertising expenses that would be needed to create atrademark of similar prominence would be considered.

From this amount an allowance is deducted to reflect all forms ofdepreciation or obsolescence present, whether it arises from physical,functional or economic causes. Physical deterioration (depreciation) isthe loss in value resulting from wear and tear from operations andexposure to the elements. Functional obsolescence is the loss in valuewithin the property as a result of such things as changes in design,materials, or processes, overcapacity, inadequacy, excess construction,lack of utility, and excess operating cost. Economic obsolescence is theloss in value that results from influences external to the property suchas the general state of economy, the effect of governmental regulations,and the like. A summary of the cost approach is presented below.

Replacement cost

-   -   Less: Physical Depreciation    -   Less: Functional Obsolescence    -   Less: Economic Obsolescence

Equals: Fair Market Value

Physical and functional obsolescence is not usually an important factorwhen valuing intellectual property but care is needed to consider theeconomic obsolescence that can be introduced by outside forces.

Unfortunately the cost to develop intellectual property rarely bears anyrelationship to the economic earning power of the property or the valueof the property.

The market approach gives consideration to prices paid for similarproperty in arm's length transactions. Adjustments can be made, ifnecessary, to the indicated market prices to reflect the condition andutility of the property being appraised relative to the marketcomparative. This approach is applicable where there is an active marketwith a sufficient quantity of reliable and verifiable data. Usually,similar property that exchanged between independent parties for whichprice data is disclosed is impossible to find for intellectualproperties. The activities of the Resolution Trust Corporation arehowever beginning to provide some of the previously missing data. Atpresent, the market approach is difficult to implement for intellectualproperty.

The income approach, by default, is still the most preferred method. Itconsiders the present value of the prospective economic benefits ofowing the appraised property. This involves a capitalization of theforecasted income stream with consideration given to the duration of theincome and the risks related to its achievement.

Care must be employed to assure that economic benefits derived from theintellectual property are isolated from the contribution to earningsderived from the complementary assets of the business. When properlydone, the income approach can provide an accurate indication of the fairmarket value of intellectual property. Once the fair market value of theintellectual property portfolio has been determined, then as indicatedabove, the fair market value is adjusted according to conventionalmethods which consider effects such as amount of time required todispose of the portfolio, market evidence of similar intellectualproperty portfolios sold in liquidation and cost to liquidate theproperty.

These accepted accounting methods rely or function on the availabilityof sufficient data relating to the intellectual property portfolioitself. Thus, in this situation, the seller of the intellectual propertyportfolio typically has used and marketed the intellectual property overa sufficiently long time period that suitable data has been collected toformulate a price based upon one of the above accounting valuationtechniques. However, these accounting techniques typically do notprovide reliable and/or dependable valuation results when the seller ofthe intellectual property portfolio has not collected data or has notused or marketed the portfolio long enough to obtain such data.

In addition, for typical purchases of intellectual property assets,there is typically unavailable an independent indicator of the worth ofthe intellectual property to be sold. The independent indicator which islacking may be either a qualitative or quantitative indicator of theworth of the intellectual property portfolio.

Accordingly, it is desirable to provide an independent analysis of anintellectual property portfolio including an independent qualitative orquantitative worth indicator of the intellectual property portfolio tobe acquired.

In addition, it is also desirable to provide an intellectual propertyaudit system that does not depend on the owner of the portfolio havingpreviously used and marketed the portfolio.

It is further desirable to provide an intellectual property audit systemwhich can be used to determine the qualitative and/or quantitative valueof the intellectual property portfolio in an efficient and relativelyrapid manner.

It is also desirable to provide the qualitative and/or quantitativevalue by analyzing the intellectual property itself in a mechanizedmanner as well as considering external factors relating to, for example,characteristics of the purchasing and selling entities.

Finally, it is also desirable that the intellectual property auditsystem be provided with the ability to output requests for manualassistance to correct, for example, erroneously entered data orincomplete or insufficient data causing the intellectual property auditsystem to be unable to completely analyze the input data for determiningof an intellectual property portfolio value. Accordingly, the auditsystem permits a user to manually correct or complete data to permit theaudit system to determine a qualitative and/or quantitative intellectualproperty portfolio value.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

It is, therefore, an object of the present invention to provide anindependent analysis of an intellectual property portfolio including anindependent qualitative or quantitative worth indicator of theintellectual property portfolio to be acquired.

It is also an object of the present invention to provide an intellectualproperty audit system that does not depend on the owner of the portfoliohaving previously used and marketed the portfolio.

It is also an object of the present invention to provide an intellectualproperty audit system which can be used to determine the qualitativeand/or quantitative value of the intellectual property portfolio in anefficient and relatively rapid manner.

It is another object of the present invention to provide the qualitativeand/or quantitative value by analyzing the intellectual property itselfin a mechanized manner as well as considering external factors relatingto, for example, characteristics of the purchasing and selling entities.

Further, it is an object of the present invention that the intellectualproperty audit system be provided with the ability to output requestsfor manual assistance to correct, for example, erroneously entered dataor incomplete or insufficient data causing the intellectual propertyaudit system to be unable to completely analyze the input data fordetermining of an intellectual property portfolio value. Accordingly,the audit system permits a user to manually correct or complete data topermit the audit system to determine a qualitative and/or quantitativeintellectual property portfolio value.

To achieve these and other objects, the present invention provides anintellectual property computer-implemented audit system for valuing anintellectual property portfolio. The intellectual property audit systemincludes a first database storing first information relating to theintellectual property portfolio and a database access and collectiondevice connected to the first database and accessing the first databaseand retrieving the first information. In addition, the intellectualproperty audit system also includes a second database storing empiricaldata relating to known intellectual property portfolios, and acomparison device connected to the database access and collection deviceand to the second database, the comparison device receiving the firstinformation from the database access and collection device and comparingthe first information to the empirical data retrieved from the seconddatabase producing an intellectual property worth indicator indicatingthe worth of the intellectual property portfolio.

These together with other objects and advantages which will besubsequently apparent, reside in the details of construction andoperation as more fully hereinafter described and claimed, withreference being had to the accompanying drawings forming a part hereof,wherein like numerals refer to like elements throughout.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a detailed block diagram of the structure of the intellectualproperty audit system of the present invention;

FIG. 2 is a conceptual diagram of the intellectual property audit systemof the present invention;

FIGS. 3-6 are block diagrams illustrating additional embodiments of thepattern matching system;

FIG. 7 is an illustration of a main central processing unit forimplementing the computer processing;

FIG. 8 is a block diagram of the internal hardware of the computerillustrated in FIG. 7; and

FIG. 9 is an illustration of an exemplary memory medium which can beused with disk drives illustrated in FIG. 7 or FIG. 8.

NOTATIONS AND NOMENCLATURE

The detailed descriptions which follow may be presented in terms ofprogram procedures executed on a computer or network of computers. Theseprocedural descriptions and representations are the means used by thoseskilled in the art to most effectively convey the substance of theirwork to others skilled in the art.

A procedure is here, and generally, conceived to be a self-consistentsequence of steps leading to a desired result. These steps are thoserequiring physical manipulations of physical quantities. Usually, thoughnot necessarily, these quantities take the form of electrical ormagnetic signals capable of being stored, transferred, combined,compared and otherwise manipulated. It proves convenient at times,principally for reasons of common usage, to refer to these signals asbits, values, elements, symbols, characters, terms, numbers, or thelike. It should be noted, however, that all of these and similar termsare to be associated with the appropriate physical quantities and aremerely convenient labels applied to these quantities.

Further, the manipulations performed are often referred to in terms,such as adding or comparing, which are commonly associated with mentaloperations performed by a human operator. No such capability of a humanoperator is necessary, or desirable in most cases, in any of theoperations described herein which form part of the present invention;the operations are machine operations. Useful machines for performingthe operation of the present invention include general purpose digitalcomputers or similar devices.

The present invention also relates to apparatus for performing theseoperations. This apparatus may be specially constructed for the requiredpurpose or it may comprise a general purpose computer as selectivelyactivated or reconfigured by a computer program stored in the computer.The procedures presented herein are not inherently related to aparticular computer or other apparatus. Various general purpose machinesmay be used with programs written in accordance with the teachingsherein, or it may prove more convenient to construct more specializedapparatus to perform the required method steps. The required structurefor a variety of these machines will appear from the description given.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT

The intellectual property audit system according to the presentinvention may be used as an integrity check for acquisitions havingassets involving a substantial intellectual property portfolio. Thesystem could be used to compare the intellectual property portfolio tobe acquired with other intellectual property portfolios having knownmarket values to obtain an indicator of the intellectual propertyportfolio's worth. Depending on the quality of empirical data, theintellectual property audit system of the present invention couldprovide a qualitative and/or quantitative analysis of an intellectualproperty portfolio which is to be acquired.

FIG. 2 is a conceptual diagram of the intellectual property audit systemof the present invention. The intellectual property audit system wouldoperate in general terms as follows. In FIG. 2, the user of the auditsystem would input the appropriate data to an input device 14. In themost basic form, the input data might simply be a list of patent numbersfor an intellectual property portfolio comprising only patents.

Next, the data would be transmitted to a database access device 16 whichwould collect various data from different on-line intellectual propertydatabases 18. The collected data represents different intellectualproperty worth indicators. Each worth indicator would then be assigned avalue which would be approximated using previously collected indicatorvalues which are based on intellectual property portfolios which haveknown worth or dollar values by consulting empirical database 22. Forexample, the audit system could access a full text patent database suchas DIALOG to analyze the listed patents. Specifically, the system coulddetermine how many claims, dependent and independent, are in eachpatent. A high value would be assigned to this indicator is there aremany claims, indicating that the drafter or owner of the patentconsidered the patent of significant importance. Additionally, thenumber of references cited or number of classes searched could also begathered and a high value assigned to the indicator when the patentlists many classes or many cited references. The rationale for the highvalue would be that there is reason to believe that the examinerperformed a detailed examination leaving the issued patent strong.Further, each patent could also be searched to determine how often thepatent itself has been cited as a reference on other patents. Highervalues would be assigned to a patent cited more often than not,indicating that the patent was perhaps a breakthrough in a particularfield.

Similar information could also be collected for trademarks which areincluded in the intellectual property portfolio from such databases asDIALOG's FEDERAL TRADEMARK SCAN and STATE TRADEMARK SCAN which inventoryfederal and state trademarks, respectively. Based upon these databases,a user might, for example, determine whether a trademark includesdisclaimers to certain words in the trademark and/or how many classesthe trademark has been issued for or covers. In addition, ORBIT's LEGALSTATUS database includes recent information affecting the trademark, andLEXIS' NEXIS database could be used to determine any recent informationrelating to the trademark which has been published in trade magazines ornewspapers.

Finally, intellectual property which also includes copyrighted workcould also be considered in a similar manner. For example, computersoftware related intellectual property might include both patents on thecomputer system as well as copyrights on the software itself.

Once all the worth indicators have been determined, they are transmittedto an indicator comparing device 20 which would compare the collectionof worth indicators to known collections of worth indicators from knownintellectual property portfolios stored in empirical database 22. Knowndistribution or estimation techniques could be used to determine whichknown intellectual property portfolio the intellectual propertyportfolio which is to be acquired matches the closest. Finally, thesystem would output the known portfolio worth value 24 for which theportfolio to be acquired matches the most, signifying a roughapproximation of the worth of the portfolio to be acquired. A detaileddescription of the intellectual property audit system according to thepresent invention follows.

FIG. 1 represents a block diagram representation of the proposedintellectual property audit system. In FIG. 1, data input device 2 isused to input the necessary data representing the intellectual propertyportfolio to be acquired. This data may be, for example, simply the listof patent numbers in the portfolio, or the data might include additionalinformation relating to the specific intellectual property portfolio orthe selling/acquiring entities which might not be readily retrievablefrom current databases. For example, the additional information mightinclude financial information regarding the selling/acquiring entitiesor recent performance in the stock market. Data input device 2 is astandard input device and may include, for example, the data entrysystem in U.S. Pat. No. 4,012,720 or the data entry interface assemblyin U.S. Pat. No. 4,638,422, incorporated herein by reference. In anyevent, the data is entered and then transmitted to database access andcollection device 4.

Database access and collection device 4 filters the received data todetermine which aspects of the received data are to be further analyzedby retrieving information regarding the data from various on-linedatabases. For example, database access and collection device 4 woulddetermine that the received patent numbers should be used to analyze thepatents while the received financial data might not be further analyzedand simply transmitted to data processor 6 for later evaluation.

With respect to the data which is to be analyzed, database access andcollection device 4 will access the various databases having informationconcerning the data to be analyzed and collect the necessary informationregarding the data. For example, with respect to the patent numberinformation, database access and collection device 4 would access theORBIT database to determine if the patent is currently involved in apending litigation using such databases as the LITALERT Database, orwhether the patent is under reexam or reissue using such ORBIT databasesas LEGAL STATUS or PATENT STATUS. Database access and collection device4 could also access the LEXIS/NEXIS database to determine whether anynewspapers have published any current information regarding the patentsas well as determining whether the patent has been involved in previouslawsuits by accessing the legal reporter files.

Finally, database access and collection device 4 can also access afull-text patent database such as DIALOG to either collect the necessaryinformation directly from DIALOG or to obtain the patents themselves.The types of patent information which would provide importantinformation could be of two forms. The first type of information wouldbe patent information derived directly from the patents. Suchinformation would include number of claims, the length of theindependent claims, number of references cited, number of classessearched, whether the patent is a reissue or reexam, number of yearsuntil patent expires or in which group the patent was examined. Inaddition, the indicators may include whether the inventor(s) is a U.S.or foreign citizen, or whether the current owner is U.S. or foreignbased. Further, information regarding U.S. or foreign priority, andwhether the cited references have publication dates near the prioritydates could also be considered.

The second type of information would not be derived from the patentitself, but would be information derived from other patents. Forexample, this information might be how often the patent being acquiredhas been cited as a reference for other patents.

Similar information could also be collected for trademarks which areincluded in the intellectual property portfolio from such databases asDIALOG's FEDERAL TRADEMARK SCAN and STATE TRADEMARK SCAN which inventoryfederal and state trademarks, respectively. Based upon these databases,a user might, for example, determine whether a trademark includesdisclaimers to certain words in the trademark and/or how many classesthe trademark has been issued for or covers. In addition, ORBIT's LEGALSTATUS database includes recent information affecting the trademark, andLEXIS' NEXIS database could be used to determine any recent informationrelating to the trademark which has been published in trade magazines ornewspapers.

Finally, intellectual property which also includes copyrighted workcould also be considered in a similar manner. For example, computersoftware related intellectual property might include both patents on thecomputer system as well as copyrights on the software itself.

Database access and collection device 4 may be any standard device whichmay interface with the various other databases using, for example,software which is able to mimic or compatible with the software systemsof the various databases. Accordingly, database access and collectiondevice 4 may include, for example, the data collection system in U.S.Pat. No. 3,810,101 or the information retrieval system in U.S. Pat. No.4,064,490, incorporated herein by reference. Additionally, databaseaccess and collection device 4 may also include, for example, themachine translation system in U.S. Pat. No. 4,814,988 or the computermethod for automatic extraction of commonly specified information frombusiness correspondence in U.S. Pat. No. 4,965,763, incorporated hereinby reference.

The collected information, including, for example, the first and secondtypes of patent information discussed above, are then transmitted todata processor 6 to process the collected data. The data which does notrequire processing in data processor 6 may be simply passed to indicatorweighing device 8. Data processor 6 would then process the collecteddata as follows: For each of the above indicators, data processor 6would assign an importance factor, based upon predetermined data storedin empirical database 12, for each of the indicators indicating theimportance of the collected data with respect to each indicator. Dataprocessor 6 may include any standard data processor such as the 386 dataprocessor manufactured by various companies including Intel and mayinclude the various functions of the artificial intelligence system inU.S. Pat. No. 4,670,848, incorporated herein by reference.

Empirical database 12 may be a single database storing all the requiredempirical data, or empirical database 12 may be comprised of severalsmaller databases each storing different required data used by theintellectual property audit system of the present invention. Empiricaldatabase may be any standard database and may include, for example, thedata storage and processing apparatus in U.S. Pat. No. 3,911,403,incorporated herein by reference.

For example, if data access and collection device 4 searched the DIALOGdatabase and collects information that a specific patent has been citedover 100 times, i.e., a citation indicator, data processor 6 mightassign an importance factor of 10 on a scale of 1 to 10 to the citationindicator. Similarly, if database access and collection device 4determines that the patent was searched in only one class for the classindicator, data processor 6 might assign a 1 on a scale of 1 to 10 tothe class indicator. Note that currently, both the class and citationindicators have the same relative importance. As discussed above, dataprocessor 6 determines the 10 value for the citation indicator and the 1value for the class factor by comparing the indicators to predeterminedindicators having predetermined values. These predetermined indicatorsare based upon collected known indicators from known intellectualproperty portfolios.

The determined worth indicators are then transmitted to an indicatorweighing device 8 which prioritizes each of the indicators against eachother based upon predetermined weighing schemes which have beendetermined from known portfolios by also consulting empirical database12. For example, the citation indicator may be more important, forexample twice as important, than the class indicator based uponpredetermined experience.

The weighted indicators are transmitted to indicator comparing device 10which compares the collection of worth indicators to known collectionsof worth indicators from known intellectual property portfolios byconsulting database 12 storing the empirical data. Known distribution orestimation techniques could be used to determine the closest matchingknown intellectual property portfolio to the intellectual propertyportfolio which is to be acquired. Finally, the system would output theknown value for which the portfolio to be acquired matches the mostsignifying a rough approximation of the worth of the portfolio to beacquired. The output may be displayed on any display, such as thedisplay systems for electronic data processing equipment in U.S. Pat.No. 3,820,080, incorporated herein by reference.

In addition to the above features, the present invention also includesthe feature of manual assistance processing in the event the process ofthe present invention fails for known or unknown reasons. Accordingly,when a failure occurs, a notice is generated to a predetermined locationwhere manual assistance may be performed. Each of data input device 2,database access and collection device 4, data processor 6, indicatorweighing device 8, indicator comparing device 10 are programmed tooutput manual assistance requests to different locations or the samelocation depending on whether the manual work force must be spread overmore than one location. Thus, the present invention is also able toeffectively correct failures in the processing of the intellectualproperty portfolio in order that the process continue to determine anintellectual property portfolio worth indicator. Thus, manual assistancemay be performed for different aspects of the processing, and theprocessing may be restarted in a standard manner for the determinationof the intellectual property worth indicator.

Advantageously, the present invention also utilizes comparisontechniques using neural network pattern matching processes. The specifictypes of pattern matching techniques implemented by the comparisonsystem/device which have already been tested and shown to provideexcellent results are the standard Kohonan and the Back Propagationneural networks, see, for example, U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,146,541 and5,303,330, incorporated herein by reference. However, other patternmatching techniques could also be used, depending on the requiredapplication. In each type of comparison, a neural network is selectedthat is suitable to the requirements of the application. The Kohonan andBack Propagation networks are discussed below.

The Kohonan neural network is useful in grouping similar patterns. Theprimary benefit of the Kohonan neural net as the basis for findingduplicate information is that it does not require training. The neuralnetwork is built and the categories are created as the entries areprovided to the Kohonan neural net. When a Kohonan neural network wasused with the Neural Pattern described earlier in connection with FIG.18, effective results are provided for small population sizes.

In a Kohonan neural network each entry is fed into the network and avalue is returned. By keeping track of the output numbers, entries withsimilar output numbers are grouped as similar. One disadvantage of theKohonan neural network is that it may be moderately slow and is somewhatineffective using large populations of entries. That is, as the numberof entries in the system increases, its ability to effectively groupsimilar data decreases.

The Back Propagation neural network is a trainable network. Using thismethod the entries are fed into the network in a first pass, whichcreates the neural pattern. Then a second pass is made with each entryto determine which values are to be compared. The second pass therebyindicates to what extent the current entry matches any of the entries inthe population. There is a guarantee that the entry will at least matchon itself within the population.

The Back Propagation network is created by creating an input/outputarray with as many slots as there are entries. For example, if there are2000 entries in the population, then a 2000 slot input/output array iscreated. For each entry that is entered into the Back Propagationnetwork, a second array is provided indicating which entry in thesequence it is. The first entry in the input/output array is indicatedby setting the first slot to 1 and the remaining slots to 0. The secondentry is indicated by setting the second slot to 1 and the remainingslots to 0, and so on.

When the entire Back Propagation network is trained with the entries, asecond pass is made to evaluate each entry against the population. Inthe evaluation phase, each entry is passed through the network alongwith an empty input/output array. The Back Propagation network fills inthe array with a value between 0 and 1 for each slot. A value of 1indicates an exact match and a value of 0 indicates no match whatsoever.By scanning the input/output array for each entry in this manner, atable can be built of each entries comparative value with all theentries in the population. Any threshold can be set to consider a matchrelevant as potential duplicate or fraudulent data. For example, a 0.5can be considered a relevant match. In this case if an entry matches anyother with a value of 0.5 or greater, it is considered a potentialduplicate.

The advantages of the Back Propagation network are that it provides arelative ranking of entries and their matches with other entries in apopulation, and that it can easily be extended to other types ofcomparison-related applications. As compared with the Kohonan, thisneural net method provides a value that indicates the extent one entrymatches another. This can be used to provide different thresholds forindicating a match. This method can also be used for a wide variety ofcomparison-related problems. In cases where a match on similar values isrequired without necessarily grouping items, this method can be used asopposed to the Kohonan. For example, in many companies there is a needto find employees that are acting as vendors to the company, since thisis likely a conflict and may potentially be the basis of fraud. However,the name, address, social security number or other information of howthe employee is registered as a vendor will likely be varied from theway the employee is registered as an employee (e.g., in the humanresource system). To find such conflicts a Back Propagation network canbe built using the entries of the human resource system, i.e., theemployee database. Then, each entry of the vendor database can be usedto find whether there is a relative match in the employee database.Since the entries are translated into one of the neural-based patterns,the Binomial neural network will identify similar entries and match onemployees that have slightly altered their identification as vendors inthe vendor system.

Kohonan and Back Propagation Neural Networks are standard and may beimplemented by, for example, NEUROWINDOWS: Neural Network Dynamic LinkLibrary, manufactured by Ward Systems Group, Inc., the manual of whichis incorporated herein by reference. Similar networks are alsodisclosed, for example, in Ca{dot over (u)}dill, M., The Kohonan Model,Neural Network Primer, AI Expert, 1990, 25-31; Simpson, P., ArtificialNeural Systems, New York, N.Y., Pergamon Press, 1990; Wasserman, P.,Neural Computing Theory and Practice, New York, N.Y., Van NostrandReinhold, 1989; Specht D. and Shapiro, P., Generalization Accuracy ofProbalisitic Neural Networks Compared With Back-Propagation Networks,Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks,Jul. 8-12, 1991, 1, 887-892, all of which are incorporated herein byreference.

FIGS. 3-6 are block diagrams illustrating additional embodiments of thepattern matching system. In these embodiments, the hardwareconfiguration is arranged according to the multiple instruction multipledata (MIMD) multiprocessor format for additional computing efficiency.FIG. 3 uses a more distributed database approach, whereas FIG. 4 uses acentral database. FIG. 5 uses a similar approach across a publicswitched telephone network, and FIG. 6 uses a distributed approach wherethe different systems are cross coupled in a standard fashion. Thedetails of this form of computer architecture are disclosed in greaterdetail in, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,163,131, Boxer, A., Where BusesCannot Go, IEEE Spectrum, February 1995, pp. 41-45; and Barroso, L. A.et al., RPM: A Rapid Prototyping Engine for Multiprocessor Systems, IEEEComputer February 1995, pp. 26-34, all of which are incorporated hereinby reference.

FIG. 7 is an illustration of a computer 218 for implementing thecomputer processing in accordance with one embodiment of the presentinvention. In FIG. 7, computer system 218 includes central processingunit 234 having disk drives 236 and 238. Disk drive indications 236 and238 are merely symbolic of the number of disk drives which might beaccommodated in this computer system. Typically, these would include afloppy disk drive such as 236, a hard disk drive (not shown eitherinternally or externally) and a CD ROM indicated by slot 238. The numberand type of drives varies, typically with different computerconfigurations. The computer includes display 240 upon which informationis displayed. A keyboard 242 and a mouse 244 are typically alsoavailable as input devices via a standard interface.

FIG. 8 is a block diagram of the internal hardware of the computer 218illustrated in FIG. 7. As illustrated in FIG. 8, data bus 248 serves asthe main information highway interconnecting the other components of thecomputer system. Central processing units (CPU) 250 is the centralprocessing unit of the system performing calculations and logicoperations required to execute a program. Read-only memory 252 andrandom access memory 254 constitute the main memory of the computer, andmay be used to store the simulation data.

Disk controller 256 interfaces one or more disk drives to the system bus248. These disk drives may be floppy disk drives such as 262, internalor external hard drives such as 260, or CD ROM or DVD (digital videodisks) drives such as 258. A display interface 264 interfaces withdisplay 240 and permits information from the bus 248 to be displayed onthe display 240. Communications with the external devices can occur oncommunications port 266.

FIG. 9 is an illustration of an exemplary memory medium which can beused with disk drives such as 262 in FIG. 8 or 236 in FIG. 7. Typically,memory media such as a floppy disk, or a CD ROM, or a digital video diskwill contain, inter alia, the program information for controlling thecomputer to enable the computer to perform the testing and developmentfunctions in accordance with the computer system described herein.

Finally, it should be noted that the various steps of the presentinvention are performed in hardware. Accordingly, each step of thepresent invention typically generates an electrical signal whichrepresents a result of a specific step performed by each of the aboveelements in FIGS. 1 and 2. Accordingly, the above discussion representsthe electrical signals which are generated and used in the variousprocedures of the present invention.

The many features and advantages of the invention are apparent from thedetailed specification, and thus, it is intended by the appended claimsto cover all such features and advantages of the invention which fallwithin the true spirit and scope of the invention. Further, sincenumerous modifications and variations will readily occur to thoseskilled in the art, it is not desired to limit the invention to theexact construction and operation illustrated and described, andaccordingly, all suitable modifications and equivalents may be resortedto, falling within the scope of the invention.

1. A computer program product storing computer instructions therein forinstructing a computer to perform a process for automaticallydetermining a machine implemented estimated value of an intellectualproperty portfolio, the program product comprising: a recording mediumreadable by the computer; and the computer instructions stored on saidrecording medium instructing the computer to perform the process, theinstructions including: (a) electronically retrieving, by the computer,first objectively determinable characteristics of representativeintellectual property portfolios and objectively determinable valuescorresponding to each of the representative intellectual propertyportfolios stored in a first database, the first objectivelydeterminable characteristics and the objectively determinable valuesforming a baseline against which to assess the estimated value of theintellectual property portfolio; (b) analyzing the intellectual propertyportfolio by the computer to determine second objectively determinablecharacteristics of the intellectual property portfolio to be estimated;(c) deriving by the computer first information representing the secondobjectively determinable characteristics of the intellectual propertyportfolio to be estimated responsive to said analyzing step (b); (d)electronically retrieving, by the computer, second informationrepresenting the first objectively determinable characteristics and theobjectively determinable values of the representative intellectualproperty portfolios stored in a second database; and (e) comparing, bythe computer, the first information received from said deriving step (c)to the second information received from said retrieving step (d) andgenerating an estimated value of the intellectual property portfoliowhen the first information of the intellectual property portfolio isstatistically similar to the second information of one of therepresentative intellectual property portfolios.
 2. A computer programproduct for determining an estimated value of an intellectual propertyportfolio according to claim 1, wherein the intellectual propertyportfolio comprises at least one patent, trademark, trade secret andcopyright intellectual property.
 3. A computer program product fordetermining an estimated value of an intellectual property portfolioaccording to claim 1, wherein at least one of a patent database, atrademark database, a copyright database, a technical literaturedatabase, a legal reporter database, a current events database and anintellectual property status database are utilized to determine theestimated value of the intellectual property portfolio.
 4. A computerprogram product for determining an estimated value of an intellectualproperty portfolio according to claim 1, wherein the intellectualproperty portfolio comprises a patent portfolio including patents, andwherein the first objectively determinable characteristics includespatent information derived from the patents in the patent portfoliocomprising at least one of the following: number of claims, length ofindependent claims, number and dates of references cited, number ofclasses searched, legal status of the patents, number of years untileach of the patents expire, group which examined each of the patents,domestic priority, and foreign priority.
 5. A computer program productfor determining an estimated value of an intellectual property portfolioaccording to claim 4, wherein the patent information further includesfrequency with which the patents have been cited as references for otherpatents.
 6. A computer program product for determining an estimatedvalue of an intellectual property portfolio according to claim 1,further comprising the step of weighing each of the first and secondobjectively determinable characteristics according to predeterminedweighing factors producing weighed first and second objectivelydeterminable characteristics, and comparing the weighed first and secondobjectively determinable characteristics to determine the statisticalsimilarity between the weighed first and second objectively determinablecharacteristics.
 7. A computer program product for determining anestimated value of an intellectual property portfolio according to claim1, wherein the intellectual property portfolio includes issued patents,and at least one of trademarks and copyrights, and wherein the firstobjectively determinable characteristics are derived by analyzing theissued patents, and the at least one of trademarks, trade secrets andcopyrights.
 8. A computer program product for determining an estimatedvalue of an intellectual property portfolio according to claim 1,wherein the estimated value of the intellectual property portfolio isderived substantially independent of accounting valuation techniquesincluding cost, market and income approaches.
 9. A computer programproduct for determining an estimated value of an intellectual propertyportfolio according to claim 1, wherein the first information of theintellectual property portfolio is determined to be statisticallysimilar to the second information of one of the representativeintellectual property portfolios utilizing at least one of a curvefitting technique and a standard deviation technique.
 10. A computerprogram product for determining an estimated value of an intellectualproperty portfolio according to claim 1, wherein the first objectivelydeterminable characteristics include first valuation indicators, whereinthe first valuation indicators are assigned an importance factor basedupon predetermined criteria, and wherein the first valuation indicatorsare compared to the second objectively determinable characteristics andthe estimated value of the intellectual property portfolio is determinedresponsive to the importance factor of each of the valuation indicators.11. A computer program product for determining an estimated value of anintellectual property portfolio according to claim 1, wherein theobjectively determinable values of the representative intellectualproperty portfolios include objectively determinable monetary values.12. A computer program product for determining an estimated value of anintellectual property portfolio according to claim 11, wherein theobjectively determinable monetary values of the representativeintellectual property portfolios are determined by at least one of prioradjudication, prior license values, prior purchase values and anaccountant evaluation based upon generally acceptable accountingprocedures (GAAP) of the representative intellectual propertyportfolios.
 13. A computer program product for determining an estimatedvalue of an intellectual property portfolio according to claim 1,wherein the first objectively determinable characteristics include atleast one of prior adjudication values, prior license values, and priorpurchase values.
 14. A computer program product storing computerinstructions therein for instructing a computer to perform a process forautomatically determining a machine implemented estimated value of anintellectual property portfolio, the program product comprising: arecording medium readable by the computer; and the computer instructionsstored on said recording medium instructing the computer to perform theprocess, the instructions including: (a) analyzing by the computer theintellectual property portfolio; (b) deriving by the computer firstinformation responsive to said analyzing step (a) based upon theintellectual property portfolio stored in a first database; (c)electronically retrieving, by the computer, empirical data relating tointellectual property portfolios stored in a second database; and (d)comparing by the computer the first information derived in said derivingstep (b) to the empirical data retrieved from said retrieving step (c)and generating an estimated intellectual property worth indicatorindicating the worth of the intellectual property portfolio.
 15. Acomputer program product for determining an estimated value of anintellectual property portfolio according to claim 14, wherein theintellectual property portfolio comprises at least one patent,trademark, trade secret and copyright intellectual property.
 16. Acomputer program product for determining an estimated value of anintellectual property portfolio according to claim 14, wherein at leastone of a patent database, a trademark database, a copyright database, alegal reporter database, a technical literature database, a currentevents database and an intellectual property status database areutilized to determine the estimated intellectual property worthindicator of the intellectual property portfolio.
 17. A computer programproduct for determining an estimated value of an intellectual propertyportfolio according to claim 14, wherein the intellectual propertyportfolio comprises a patent portfolio including patents, and whereinthe first information includes patent information derived from thepatents in the patent portfolio comprising at least one of thefollowing: number of claims, length of independent claims, number anddates of references cited, number of classes searched, legal status ofthe patents, number of years until each of the patents expire, groupwhich examined each of the patents, domestic priority, and foreignpriority.
 18. A computer program product for determining an estimatedvalue of an intellectual property portfolio according to claim 17,wherein the patent information further includes frequency with which thepatents have been cited as references for other patents.
 19. A computerprogram product for determining an estimated value of an intellectualproperty portfolio according to claim 14, further comprising the step ofweighing each of the first information and the empirical data accordingto predetermined weighing factors producing weighed first informationand weighed empirical data respectively, and said comparing step (d)further comprises the step of comparing the weighed first informationand the weighed empirical data to determine similarity there between todetermine the estimated intellectual property worth indicator.
 20. Acomputer program product for determining an estimated value of anintellectual property portfolio according to claim 14, wherein theintellectual property portfolio includes issued patents, and at leastone of trademarks, trade secrets and copyrights, and wherein the firstinformation are derived by analyzing the issued patents, and the atleast one of trademarks and copyrights.
 21. A computer program productfor determining an estimated value of an intellectual property portfolioaccording to claim 14, wherein the estimated intellectual property worthindicator of the intellectual property portfolio is derivedsubstantially independent of accounting valuation techniques includingcost, market and income approaches.
 22. A computer program product fordetermining an estimated value of an intellectual property portfolioaccording to claim 14, wherein the first information of the intellectualproperty portfolio is determined to be statistically similar to theempirical data of the intellectual property portfolio utilizing at leastone of a curve fitting technique and a standard deviation technique. 23.A computer program product for determining an estimated value of anintellectual property portfolio according to claim 14, wherein the firstinformation includes first valuation indicators, wherein the firstvaluation indicators are assigned an importance factor based uponpredetermined criteria, and wherein the first valuation indicators arecompared to the empirical data and the estimated intellectual propertyworth indicator of the intellectual property portfolio is determinedresponsive to the importance factor of the first valuation indicators.24. A computer program product for determining an estimated value of anintellectual property portfolio according to claim 14, wherein the firstinformation of the intellectual property portfolio includes anobjectively determinable monetary value.
 25. A computer program productfor determining an estimated value of an intellectual property portfolioaccording to claim 24, wherein the objectively determinable monetaryvalue of the intellectual property portfolio is determined by at leastone of prior adjudication, prior license values, prior purchase valuesand an accountant evaluation based upon generally acceptable accountingprocedures (GAAP) of the intellectual property portfolio.
 26. A computerprogram product for determining an estimated value of an intellectualproperty portfolio according to claim 14, wherein the first informationincludes at least one of prior adjudication values, prior licensevalues, and prior purchase values.
 27. A computer program productstoring computer instructions therein for instructing a computer toperform a process for automatically determining a machine implementedestimated value of an intellectual property portfolio, the programproduct comprising: a recording medium readable by the computer; and thecomputer instructions stored on said recording medium instructing thecomputer to perform the process, the instructions including: (a)analyzing by the computer the intellectual property portfolio; (b)deriving by the computer first information responsive to said analyzingstep (a) based upon the intellectual property portfolio; (c)electronically retrieving by the computer empirical data relating tointellectual property portfolios stored in a first database; and (d)comparing by the computer the first information derived in said derivingstep (b) to the empirical data retrieved from said retrieving step (c)and generating an intellectual property worth indicator indicating theworth of the intellectual property portfolio, wherein the intellectualproperty includes information electronically retrieved from at least oneof a patent database, a trademark database, technical literaturedatabase, a copyright database, legal reporter information database,current events database and an intellectual property status informationdatabase.
 28. A computer program product storing computer instructionstherein for instructing a computer to perform a process forautomatically determining a machine implemented estimated value of anintellectual property portfolio, the program product comprising: arecording medium readable by the computer; and the computer instructionsstored on said recording medium instructing the computer to perform theprocess, the instructions including: (a) analyzing by the computer theintellectual property portfolio stored in an intellectual propertydatabase; (b) deriving by the computer information responsive to saidanalyzing step (a) based upon the intellectual property portfolio; (c)electronically retrieving, by the computer, quality data relating tointellectual property portfolios stored in a first database; and (d)comparing by the computer the information derived in said deriving step(b) to the quality data retrieved from said retrieving step (c) andgenerating an intellectual property factor indicating the at least oneof the financial quality and the financial quantity of the intellectualproperty portfolio.
 29. A computer program product according to claim28, wherein the intellectual property portfolio comprises at least onepatent, trademark, trade secret and copyright intellectual property. 30.A computer program product according to claim 28, wherein at least oneof a patent database, a trademark database, a copyright database, alegal reporter database, a technical literature database, a currentevents database and an intellectual property status database areutilized to determine the at least one of the financial quality and thefinancial quantity of the intellectual property portfolio.
 31. Acomputer program product according to claim 28, wherein the intellectualproperty portfolio comprises a patent portfolio including patents, andwherein the information includes patent information derived from thepatents in the patent portfolio comprising at least one of thefollowing: number of claims, length of independent claims, number anddates of references cited, number of classes searched, legal status ofthe patents, number of years until each of the patents expire, groupwhich examined each of the patents, domestic priority, and foreignpriority.
 32. A computer program product according to claim 31, whereinthe patent information further includes frequency with which the patentshave been cited as references for other patents.
 33. A computer programproduct according to claim 28, further comprising the step of weighingeach of the information and the quality data according to predeterminedweighing factors producing weighed information and weighed empiricaldata respectively, and said comparing step (d) further comprises thestep of comparing the weighed information and the weighed empirical datato determine similarity there between to determine the estimatedintellectual property worth indicator.
 34. A computer program productaccording to claim 28, wherein the intellectual property portfolioincludes issued patents, and at least one of trademarks, trade secretsand copyrights, and wherein the information are derived by analyzing theissued patents, and the at least one of trademarks and copyrights.
 35. Acomputer program product according to claim 28, wherein the at least oneof the financial quality and the financial quantity of the intellectualproperty portfolio is derived substantially independent of accountingvaluation techniques including cost, market and income approaches.
 36. Acomputer program product according to claim 28, wherein the informationof the intellectual property portfolio is determined to be statisticallysimilar to the quality data of the intellectual property portfolioutilizing at least one of a curve fitting technique and a standarddeviation technique.
 37. A computer program product according to claim28, wherein the information includes valuation indicators, wherein thevaluation indicators are assigned an importance factor based uponpredetermined criteria, and wherein the valuation indicators arecompared to the quality data and the at least one of the financialquality and the financial quantity of the intellectual propertyportfolio is determined responsive to the importance factor of thevaluation indicators.
 38. A computer program product according to claim28, wherein the information of the intellectual property portfolioincludes an objectively determinable monetary value.
 39. A computerprogram product according to claim 38, wherein the objectivelydeterminable monetary value of the intellectual property portfolio isdetermined by at least one of prior adjudication, prior license values,prior purchase values and an accountant evaluation based upon generallyacceptable accounting procedures (GAAP) of the intellectual propertyportfolio.
 40. A computer program product according to claim 28, whereinthe information includes at least one of prior adjudication values,prior license values, and prior purchase values.
 41. A computer programproduct storing computer instructions therein for instructing a computerto perform a process for automatically determining a machine implementedestimated value of an intellectual property portfolio, the programproduct comprising: a recording medium readable by the computer; and thecomputer instructions stored on said recording medium instructing thecomputer to perform the process, the instructions including: (a)analyzing by the computer the intellectual property portfolio stored inan intellectual property database; (b) deriving by the computerinformation responsive to said analyzing step (a) based upon theintellectual property portfolio; (c) electronically retrieving, by thecomputer, quality data relating to intellectual property portfoliosstored in a first database; and (d) comparing by the computer theinformation derived in said deriving step (b) to the quality dataretrieved from said retrieving step (c) and generating an intellectualproperty quality indicator indicating the at least one of the estimatedquality and quantity of the intellectual property portfolio, wherein theintellectual property database includes at least one of a patentdatabase, a trademark database, a technical literature database, acopyright database, a legal reporter database, a current events databaseand an intellectual property status database.